Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DysklyverBOT

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

DysklyverBOT

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 15:04, Sunday, October 22, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Manual/semi-automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: Standard AWB

Function overview: Adding WikiProject banners to article talk pages, adding "Template:WikiProject banner shell" where a page has 3 or more banners if the template is not already used. Where applicable the parameter |class=stub|importance= will be added to the banner.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): When the operator has free time and concentration to use it, but will only ever run once on an article.

Estimated number of pages affected: approx. 2500 pages a week, ongoing. (but more than 3 p/m)

Namespace(s): Article Talk

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): yes

Function details: Alternative account to allow User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver to clean up Wikiproject tagging using the semi-automated AWB tool, without clogging up his edit history. All edits will be done manually and by the operator checking the page and categories to determine context. The primary use case is low traffic stub articles where the creator simply didn't know which tags to add and later editors have not finished tagging. It will used for adding WikiProject banners to stubs, adding "Template:WikiProject banner shell" where a page has 3 or more banners if the template is not already used. It will also be used to place parameters for later assessment, and will be used to assess as stub where the article already has a stub tag therefore where applicable the parameter |class=stub|importance= will be added to the banner. Eg. {{WikiProject Cornwall|class=stub|importance=}}, the importance tag will be filled in WikiProjects the operator is knowledgeable about only.

Discussion

I'm not seeing the purpose of having a bot for these types of edits, especially if they are going to be manual. Nihlus 20:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Well its not really a bot, but the process is semi-automatic, and tasks that involve high-speed editing using semi-autonomous programs may require approval in the same way as bots do (I read this in WP:BOTASSIST. I also don't know whether it would be beneficial for this kind of alternative account to be flagged in some way. I know the AWB is manually operated, but I use various other local tools as well to speed things up. Dysklyver 21:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

You could always just use an alt account with AWB if it's going to be manual. You have enough of them. Primefac (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I thought it would be a good idea to check first, but if a bot account is not needed then that's fine by me. Dysklyver 22:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I have been told categorically that this use case would result in a block for disruption on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser so maybe this is needed after all. Some clarification on this would be good. Dysklyver 22:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

In general, doing a repeated task at the rate of 10000+ edits/month is appropriate to be done from a bot account, provided the edits are non-controversial, useful, and have general community support. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

AWB is exclusion compliant unless you disable it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Currently I am thinking I could include other banners at the same time, like this. I was initially thinking of just adding WikiProject Tags, however other useful talk page tags could be added at the same time. Dysklyver 14:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

(Note: I'm the admin who declined AWB authorization for this task.) Having just glanced at your recent talk-page taggings to get a feel for what you're intending to do, of your last five taggings ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) every single edit is adding inappropriate tags. Per my comments at your AWB request, I have no doubt that you're acting in good faith, but as both myself and Primefac have said you don't appear to understand the back-end operations of Wikipedia well enough to be operating bots or semi-automation. Because of their potential to cause mass disruption, AGF needs to be suspended to some degree when it comes to operating bots and scripts as if something or someone is causing problems they need to be stopped; were you to use a bot or script to mis-tag articles in bulk, regardless of good faith we'd have no alternative but to perform an emergency shutdown on the bot, or an emergency stripping of userrights if you were using AWB. Don't take this as an insult—AWB is an extremely difficult tool to use without causing disruption (it's so hard to use without causing problems that even its developer is currently banned from using it), and because disruption caused by well-intentioned AWB misuse is so hard to clean up (and has so many knock-on effects such as a mass rollback clogging Special:RecentChanges and watchlists), we scrutinize requests to use it for bulk runs very closely. ‑ Iridescent 21:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I will just let someone else do this if they have the time, but out of interest @Iridescent:, which tags are inappropriate? Dysklyver 21:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: just to be clear, are you withdrawing this entire application? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No, this still needs doing, and I would like to be the one to do it (approval permitting), but I need clarification on which tags I should not use per Iridescent's comment. Dysklyver 19:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• I finally found the task I kept thinking this was going to duplicate - MenoBot's task 2. Don't know how much this task goes above and beyond that task, but I thought it was worth a mention. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't see any overlap there, all MenoBot and BG19bot are doing is tagging with BLP WikiProject biography tags automatically, which is not something I would be doing. I can't see any feasible way of adding this task to an automatic bot queue. Dysklyver 13:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I have identified that User:Reedy Bot is another automated tagging bot, again focused solely on automated BLP tagging, and I for reference, there is ;Category:WikiProject tagging bots, several bots are approved for similar functions, without notable overlap in scope. Dysklyver 14:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Administrator note Closed AWB request as notdone - feel free to add AWB access as needed via this BRFA. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Query: What do I do next? Only Iridecent seems to think the talk page tags I added are inappropriate, and no-one has complained about or reverted my test run. Do I just wait? Dysklyver 23:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} I would like to go ahead with a limited set of templates which are not controversial. These are:

{{Talk header}} - only on pages which have more than 3 comments or where the page is identified as C-class or higher on the Wikipedia 1.0 scale.

{{WikiProjectBannerShell}} - only in circumstances where there are 3 or more WikiProject banners.

{{Friendly search suggestions}} - only on pages below C-class on the Wikipedia 1.0 scale.

{{WikiProject United Kingdom}} as required, WikiProject talk page banners specific to project.

|class=Stub or |class=Start - used where the page is easy to assess. Or matching existing tags. Or parameter not included.

|importance=low this parameter will not be used, except where matching existing tags and/or easy to assess (eg. a hamlet).

> Dysklyver 14:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yet again, the task you're proposing is inherently disruptive, and if you go ahead with it I'll block either you or the bot as appropriate, since the message doesn't appear to be sinking in. WPUK is a parent project, and the {{WikiProject United Kingdom}} tag is for general UK-related articles such as BBC and Royal Navy, not for every article on a place or person who happens to be in or connected to the UK. (Basically, if the topic falls into any category on this list, the WPUK tag will be inappropriate.) Except in a very few cases of discrete sets which all fall into a particular group (e.g., all MPs biographies can be presumed to fall under WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, or the ReedyBot tagging you mention in which all biographical articles get a {{WPBiography}} tag), deciding which projects a given article falls under is something with which human editors struggle (just separating the articles falling under Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport from Wikipedia:WikiProject London was a monumental undertaking), and it's not something that's appropriate for a bot. ‑ Iridescent 17:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Iridescent:, it would have helped if you had said that last week. grumble grumble. Dysklyver 11:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a good task for a bot. Dysklyver 11:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn by operator. Dysklyver 11:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.